---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

tonester wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

Exactly. If he doesnt care then why he bother to reply to my question and defend AT&T. It is clearly evident that AT&T is wrong in this situation. They may not be wrong as by Law, but they are wrong by bad ethics and by not providing customer satisfaction (i would say by frustrating customers).

---

tonester wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

there is a point after 5 years of asking that any question is not worth it, since it has been asked as-naseum...

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

tonester wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

there is a point after 5 years of asking that any question is not worth it, since it has been asked as-naseum...

---

They are still asking because people really need it.   

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

vitriol wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

vitriol wrote:
This sounds made up to me. The actual price difference for new phones is very small, and you would end up a lot worse off if you had to pay a deposit /monthly fee for a contract you were never going to use.

On the other hand potential market for international unlocking is anyone who travels abroad. I'm going to guess this is more than 0.0001% Granted people aren't usually aware initially, but they are when they come back to a whacking great roaming bill.

---

think international currency, a 649.00 US priced phne would only cost 411.52 in GBP as compared to 499.00 in GBP for one purchased over there at the current conversion rates - which fluctuate daily. Sorry but that is a significant amount of savings. Add to the fact the majority of posts start out - I purchased a Iphone on fleabay that is locked to ATT....

 

Review the forums - 99.9 percent of the unlock requests for the iphone do not post about traveling international, the majority is people from outside the US purchasing the phone and wanting to unlock it to their native carrier./

---

Part of that discrepancy is down to GBP prices including sales tax. Also it's full retail, and so unlocked anyway.

 

For ATT locked iphone, if someone wants to buy one in the  US and take it back, well firstly they need a US billing address and secondly it'll probably cost them at least a 500$ deposit and a 350$ ETF (?)...

 

Most likely the people who turn up here have bought it secondhand on ebay and found that the US ones are cheaper but failed to notice that's because they're still locked. But I'm not sure AT&T has a particular interest in this transaction.

 

Whilst no doubt irritating, I don't think forum posts give conclusive evidence on how people are going to behave when deciding between verizon, sprint and at&t.  From the customer's point of view it *should* be a no brainer. The domestic prices are more or less the same, but on verizon/sprint you can avoid exorbitant roaming data charges (20$ / mb!).

---

Key word here - cheaper, if you play the currency game make sure you understand and research the rules. from the customer point of view it may be a "no brainer" but it is not the customer point of view that is the deciding factor - it is the corporation's point of view the trumps everything. 

 

 At this time ATT has no intention of unlocking ANY iphone, which is perfeclty with in any corporations rights. Personally we find it cheaper to issue international phones and contracts when we have people travel overseas, in most cases sat phones are isused because of the lack of coveaged where the people goes.

 

Thing is while in the majority of cases you comment on not thinking forum posts give conclusive evidence is probably accurate in most cases, in this case it is invalid - if you review the unlock my iphone posts you see that the majority of them specificly state that they purchased the phone over here while on vacation / school / business trip / off fleabay for use in their country and their carrier, so that in itself is fairly conculsive. In addition, the prives that I quoted for the phones did not state "included sales tax" or more correctly know as VAT, not sure where you came up with that statement, can you document it?

---

All I was trying to say is that the "currency game", such as it is, only comes into play for the secondary market, and overall the primary market is much more important to the providers where they can lock in contracts, and as I've said the currency issue is frankly irrelevant.

Second point is, the corporation point of view doesn't trump if the customers decide to switch. I am actually quite mystified at the general level of hostility on this forum to the concept that customers might switch to get a better service. Consumers are allowed to be free marketeers too right?!

No-one knows what the future policy of AT&T is going to be regarding unlocking, even the CEO- so don't believe anyone claiming otherwise! My point simply is that since users can switch to get unlocked phones, there is certainly now some incentive for them to change this policy, namely avoid losing customers altogether. Before there was literally no incentive because they had a total monopology on gsm iphones, which were very much in demand.

Finally re sales tax/vat, it's the law that any quoted sales price in the UK has to include VAT (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/sectors/consumers/basics.htm)...lots of people get caught out by this unless they are perverse enough to go on holiday in delaware...

After a length debate with both ATT and Apple and unable to comprehend the technical complexity in addressing my simple request to unlock a no-contract phone I have lodged complaint with FTC , FCC as well as Georgia’s office or governor.

I called FTC to find out what are the next steps. I was told that filing a complaint does not guarantee that FTC will take it up. If there are enough complaints FTC will consider investigating the matter.  So here’s a list of all the government agencies which regulate this industry and you can file complaint against these companies here:

1. FTC: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

2. FCC: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

If you are in the same boat as me or if you are out of contract and your phone is reduced to mere iPod status, I would urge you to file complaint with the government. {link removed per guidelines}

---

afsalva wrote:

---

tonester wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

Exactly. If he doesnt care then why he bother to reply to my question and defend AT&T. It is clearly evident that AT&T is wrong in this situation. They may not be wrong as by Law, but they are wrong by bad ethics and by not providing customer satisfaction (i would say by frustrating customers).

---

Because I am giving you THE ONLY ANSWER there is from ONE USER to ANOTHER USER on a USER FORUM. DONT BUY THIS PHONE if you want an unlocked iPhone. BUY the $700 SIM UNLOCKED version from APPLE.

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

---

tonester wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

Exactly. If he doesnt care then why he bother to reply to my question and defend AT&T. It is clearly evident that AT&T is wrong in this situation. They may not be wrong as by Law, but they are wrong by bad ethics and by not providing customer satisfaction (i would say by frustrating customers).

---

Because I am giving you THE ONLY ANSWER there is from ONE USER to ANOTHER USER on a USER FORUM. DONT BUY THIS PHONE if you want an unlocked iPhone. BUY the $700 SIM UNLOCKED version from APPLE.

---

what about the phones which we have already bought and contract is expired? Dont ask us what to do, we are in a user forum and we are expressing our concerns about the unethical policy of AT&T. If you dont like it then ignore it.

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

tonester wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

there is a point after 5 years of asking that any question is not worth it, since it has been asked as-naseum...

---

And as folks have repeated "as naseum" [sic] things have changed now. When the question was originally asked, and asked through out the years, AT&T was the only carrier offering it. That's not the case now. Regardless, forums are a place where NEW USERS ASK QUESTIONS. It behooves old users to exercise patience when new users join. Basically EVERY TIME a new iphone is released, cut folks some slack, as new users unfamiliar with AT&Ts unique, and draconian policy will post. Otherwise, I'd suggest folks

refrain from posting, or refer folks to a useful link or FAQ.

Perhaps this particular forum could use some new mods who don't mind answering the same question over and over, and/or referring folks to a useful thread/FAQ. Until things change with AT&T, of course...

Seems like this recent post from 9to5Mac may be of help to you

 

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

tonester wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

there is a point after 5 years of asking that any question is not worth it, since it has been asked as-naseum...

---

And as folks have repeated "as naseum" [sic] things have changed now. When the question was originally asked, and asked through out the years, AT&T was the only carrier offering it. That's not the case now. Regardless, forums are a place where NEW USERS ASK QUESTIONS. It behooves old users to exercise patience when new users join. Basically EVERY TIME a new iphone is released, cut folks some slack, as new users unfamiliar with AT&Ts unique, and draconian policy will post. Otherwise, I'd suggest folks refrain from posting, or refer folks to a useful link or FAQ.

---

thanks for proving my point "guandalf". This forum needs some helpful folks who don't mind revisiting an issue as the situation evolves.

Here's a thought... instead of posting the same question about whether AT&T will unlock your iPhone, do a search of the site for "unlock iPhone".  It's really quite simple and provides all the answers that anyone needs... see for yourself.

---

afsalva wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

---

tonester wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

Exactly. If he doesnt care then why he bother to reply to my question and defend AT&T. It is clearly evident that AT&T is wrong in this situation. They may not be wrong as by Law, but they are wrong by bad ethics and by not providing customer satisfaction (i would say by frustrating customers).

---

Because I am giving you THE ONLY ANSWER there is from ONE USER to ANOTHER USER on a USER FORUM. DONT BUY THIS PHONE if you want an unlocked iPhone. BUY the $700 SIM UNLOCKED version from APPLE.

---

what about the phones which we have already bought and contract is expired? Dont ask us what to do, we are in a user forum and we are expressing our concerns about the unethical policy of AT&T. If you dont like it then ignore it.

---

The terms of sale did not change after the contract expired. You agreed to the terms of sale printed on the outside of the box when you opened the box. On the back, it clearly says, service with AT&T is required to use the phone. Since you're legally bound by those terms, and AT&T hasn't changed the terms, the contract expiring or not has nothing to do with the terms.

I understand you don't like that you agreed to terms you now find undersirable, but that doesn't change the legal status of those terms.

Other users, wishing to avoid your situation have two choices. 1) don't by an iPhone that is sim locked, select a different brand of phone instead or 2) buy the SIM unlocked iPhone (which is NOT the no-contact iphone) from Apple.

All the endless posts about this are complaining about accepting terms and then wishing they were different.

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

tonester wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

afsalva wrote:

If AT&T's intention is to get the roaming charges if we go out of the country, why they are willing to unlock all other phones except for iphone? I think they are more concerned about people switching to different carriers (T-Mobile) than wanting to get roaming charges.

---

Who knows or cares what their intentions are? They've clearly stated they aren't going to do it, and by now everyone knows they don't do it - if this is something you NEED, then you know you're not going to use a locked AT&T iPhone to do it.

 

That's the important bit of information.

---

Just because you and/or other people don't know and/or care doesn't make the question not worth asking...

---

there is a point after 5 years of asking that any question is not worth it, since it has been asked as-naseum...

---

And as folks have repeated "as naseum" [sic] things have changed now. When the question was originally asked, and asked through out the years, AT&T was the only carrier offering it. That's not the case now. Regardless, forums are a place where NEW USERS ASK QUESTIONS. It behooves old users to exercise patience when new users join. Basically EVERY TIME a new iphone is released, cut folks some slack, as new users unfamiliar with AT&Ts unique, and draconian policy will post. Otherwise, I'd suggest folks

refrain from posting, or refer folks to a useful link or FAQ.

Perhaps this particular forum could use some new mods who don't mind answering the same question over and over, and/or referring folks to a useful thread/FAQ. Until things change with AT&T, of course...

---

Exactly, because it would seem that some of these "old users" tend to forget that they too started out as new users.  If these folks can't bothered to exercise some patience over a simple post in a forum--no matter how pointless the post may or may not be (as long as it's not a personal attack)...it sorta makes you wonder how these folks are towards people in general when they're not hiding behind a monitor.  IOW--instead of simplying ignoring the post if it bores them or whatnot, these folks choose to instead indirectly criticize the poster for having made such a post.  If it bothers you that much to answer the same mundane questions with the same answers over and over again, then DON'T ANSWER IT...or better yet, DON'T BOTHER READING IT!  No one's forcing you to read the post and/or reply to it...

---

the gryphon wrote:
Ahh yes, page 11 and someone chimes in with "do a search". Helpful! (not)

---

LOL, apparently "do a search" is low on the list of answers to OP's question...you know, behind such "helpful" replies like (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Why do people ask the same questions over and over?" 

Hi folks, lets try to stay on topic and always keep it nice and courteous please. Thank you

---

ShaunMN wrote:

Hi folks, lets try to stay on topic and always keep it nice and courteous please. Thank you

---

Shaun, I'm being sincere when I say this.  Can we get a sticky thread regarding the permanent lock status of all AT&T iPhones?  If the situation changes in the future, change the sticky thread.  However, it clutters the board to have this same topic posted over and over again.  It also makes AT&T look customer-unfriendly.  If I were a potential customer and came to our forum to see several threads about the same topic, but AT&T did nothing to address it, I would think that AT&T did not care about its customers and look for another service provider.  However, if I were a potential customer and saw one thread from AT&T addressing its policy regarding iPhone unlocking, I could at least feel like the company was being straight-forward with me, and I could take it or leave it.

Even though I ask for a sticky thread, I'm sure that there will be users who will post threads about this anyway.  However, any reduction to the current number of threads would be appreciated.  This board clutter makes it hard to find solutions to real problems and answers to "real" questions that iPhone users have.  I have to say that from the looks side, VZW's iPhone forums look better.  AT&T still has the upper hand in helpfulness from the users, in my opinion.

10 years ago the telephone monopolies in Europe behaved like ATT.

A lot of pressure from users and goverments who would like to see a free market, changed that.

Now Europe has what is called "The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive"

I would have though that here in the free world,  a free market also for telephones, would be in the interest of averybody. (except the old monopolies maybe)

If ATT is not listening - we must try to put pressure on in other ways, polical or in my case voting with my feet and valet.

---

vitriol wrote:
Can I suggest if you don't want to read posts about unlocking you don't click on threads with unlocking in the title

---

Feel free to suggest it.  I don't always read the unlocking threads and if you read my post carefully, I was speaking of the way that it makes the forum look, not the individual posts.  Even from the forum page, one can see the multiple posts regarding unlocking the iPhone.

I wasn't complaining about the fact that the threads exist.  I was making a suggestion that would actually be helpful (unlike yours) to other customers who are looking for information about their iPhones, as well as people who are looking for AT&T's official policy regarding unlocking the iPhone.

---

storepeter wrote:

10 years ago the telephone monopolies in Europe behaved like ATT.

 

A lot of pressure from users and goverments who would like to see a free market, changed that.

 

Now Europe has what is called "The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive"

 

I would have though that here in the free world,  a free market also for telephones, would be in the interest of averybody. (except the old monopolies maybe)

 

If ATT is not listening - we must try to put pressure on in other ways, polical or in my case voting with my feet and valet.

---

You have the choice to pay extra money to purchase a sim-unlocked phone if that's what you want. So you have the freedom to do it.

You can't buy an AT&T Subsidised iPhone and use it on a non-AT&T Network. You are informed of this (but apparently people somehow don't hear it, or its not done, but even so it's printed on the outside of the box... which you should be able to see before you open the box.)

This has nothing to do with freedom. It's simple being an educated consumer.

AT&T  has over 100 million customers. Not sure how many are members of this forum, but I would imagine that it is a fraction of 1 tenth of one percent. What makes the {please keep it courteous} think that AT&T gives a hoot about anything posted on this site. {please keep it courteous} .

One can also write a letter to Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis.  He is Chairman of the US Senate Antitrust Subcommittee and he is a friendly ear to such concerns.

---

cousintim wrote:

One can also write a letter to Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis.  He is Chairman of the US Senate Antitrust Subcommittee and he is a friendly ear to such concerns.

---

interesdting comment, although not realy sure how you figure the isuse is anti-trust related, since it has to do with the demanding that a carrier unlock a single brand of phone that is now sold and is available through other carriers, but hey it is a interesting thought, doesn;t seem to fit any of the anti-trust directives that are onthe books - got an example?

---

johninsj wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

10 years ago the telephone monopolies in Europe behaved like ATT.

 

A lot of pressure from users and goverments who would like to see a free market, changed that.

 

Now Europe has what is called "The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive"

 

I would have though that here in the free world,  a free market also for telephones, would be in the interest of averybody. (except the old monopolies maybe)

 

If ATT is not listening - we must try to put pressure on in other ways, polical or in my case voting with my feet and valet.

---

You have the choice to pay extra money to purchase a sim-unlocked phone if that's what you want. So you have the freedom to do it.

 

You can't buy an AT&T Subsidised iPhone and use it on a non-AT&T Network. You are informed of this (but apparently people somehow don't hear it, or its not done, but even so it's printed on the outside of the box... which you should be able to see before you open the box.)

 

This has nothing to do with freedom. It's simple being an educated consumer.

---

Why do we insist on pretending this has always been the case? When the OP (yes, him) bought his phone he was not given this option. When I bought my first AND second iphones I was not given this option. 

I was (after a time) given this option when purchasing my third iphone. But yes, most folks do NOT know this because it's very unusual. There are very few phones that carriers refuse to unlock after contract. (Or even when being deployed to another dang country). The old tmobile sidekick is one of a few I can think of. It's unusual, and folks don't immediately think of it.  Folks who accidentially buy an iphone from ebay from an ATT user are always stunned to hear it can't be unlocked, because that's unheard of outside of the U.S. 

---

smalcom wrote:

AT&T  has over 100 million customers. Not sure how many are members of this forum, but I would imagine that it is a fraction of 1 tenth of one percent. What makes the {please keep it courteous} think that AT&T gives a hoot about anything posted on this site. {please keep it courteous} .

---

Having moderated a forum with tens of thousands of members, representing a fraction of the customers I can say: you're quite wrong. I know for a fact that my employers were reading the forums, and directing us to look for issues, concerns, and patterns.

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

10 years ago the telephone monopolies in Europe behaved like ATT.

 

A lot of pressure from users and goverments who would like to see a free market, changed that.

 

Now Europe has what is called "The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive"

 

I would have though that here in the free world,  a free market also for telephones, would be in the interest of averybody. (except the old monopolies maybe)

 

If ATT is not listening - we must try to put pressure on in other ways, polical or in my case voting with my feet and valet.

---

You have the choice to pay extra money to purchase a sim-unlocked phone if that's what you want. So you have the freedom to do it.

 

You can't buy an AT&T Subsidised iPhone and use it on a non-AT&T Network. You are informed of this (but apparently people somehow don't hear it, or its not done, but even so it's printed on the outside of the box... which you should be able to see before you open the box.)

 

This has nothing to do with freedom. It's simple being an educated consumer.

---

Why do we insist on pretending this has always been the case? When the OP (yes, him) bought his phone he was not given this option. When I bought my first AND second iphones I was not given this option. 

I was (after a time) given this option when purchasing my third iphone. But yes, most folks do NOT know this because it's very unusual. There are very few phones that carriers refuse to unlock after contract. (Or even when being deployed to another dang country). The old tmobile sidekick is one of a few I can think of. It's unusual, and folks don't immediately think of it.  Folks who accidentially buy an iphone from ebay from an ATT user are always stunned to hear it can't be unlocked, because that's unheard of outside of the U.S. 

 

---

the words "outside the US" are the key here - just becsue it is done / required "outside the US" people should not assume that it is the same all over the world, doesn't work that way.

You where not "given the ooptopn" becasue it wsa not an otion to be given at the tije, the sale of unlocked Iphones are recent and only for full price at a Apple stores, used nd recylced ones from fleabay or craigs list do not qualify so there is no option there either.

sorry - folks do niot "accidently buy an iphone from fleabay",  esepcaily htose that reside outisde the borders of the US, they look to play the currency game and get a cheap iphone for their own use in their own countrym the play the game without researching or understand the rules of the game. 

Also - if you do some research, especially on the iphone in lands outside the US - there are numerous carriers that only sell iphones that are locked to teh carrier and are not unlocked - this is documented on the Apple website. 

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

smalcom wrote:

AT&T  has over 100 million customers. Not sure how many are members of this forum, but I would imagine that it is a fraction of 1 tenth of one percent. What makes the {please keep it courteous} think that AT&T gives a hoot about anything posted on this site. {please keep it courteous} .

---

Having moderated a forum with tens of thousands of members, representing a fraction of the customers I can say: you're quite wrong. I know for a fact that my employers were reading the forums, and directing us to look for issues, concerns, and patterns.

---

from running support forums and call centers for a couple of major online games can also state - that in the majority cases what is posted on the forums as customer complaints of "poor service" in no way shape or form actuaily reflect what is on the tapes from the recorded conversation of said complaint call. It often makes for a amusing weekly review that really brightens our days with the humor of the two different version of the "poor support", really wish that the recordings of the conversations could be posted in reply to the "poor support" posts. Blizzard tends to shoot down customer complaints on their forums by paraphasing what actually occurred on the call with out giving details - I applaud that as forward thinking, love the busines model of that

 Interesting side point - what is done at one company rarely is matched by any other company, especially those that run peer to peer forums

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

10 years ago the telephone monopolies in Europe behaved like ATT.

 

A lot of pressure from users and goverments who would like to see a free market, changed that.

 

Now Europe has what is called "The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive"

 

I would have though that here in the free world,  a free market also for telephones, would be in the interest of averybody. (except the old monopolies maybe)

 

If ATT is not listening - we must try to put pressure on in other ways, polical or in my case voting with my feet and valet.

---

You have the choice to pay extra money to purchase a sim-unlocked phone if that's what you want. So you have the freedom to do it.

 

You can't buy an AT&T Subsidised iPhone and use it on a non-AT&T Network. You are informed of this (but apparently people somehow don't hear it, or its not done, but even so it's printed on the outside of the box... which you should be able to see before you open the box.)

 

This has nothing to do with freedom. It's simple being an educated consumer.

---

Why do we insist on pretending this has always been the case? When the OP (yes, him) bought his phone he was not given this option. When I bought my first AND second iphones I was not given this option. 

I was (after a time) given this option when purchasing my third iphone. But yes, most folks do NOT know this because it's very unusual. There are very few phones that carriers refuse to unlock after contract. (Or even when being deployed to another dang country). The old tmobile sidekick is one of a few I can think of. It's unusual, and folks don't immediately think of it.  Folks who accidentially buy an iphone from ebay from an ATT user are always stunned to hear it can't be unlocked, because that's unheard of outside of the U.S. 

 

---

the words "outside the US" are the key here - just becsue it is done / required "outside the US" people should not assume that it is the same all over the world, doesn't work that way.

 

You where not "given the ooptopn" becasue it wsa not an otion to be given at the tije, the sale of unlocked Iphones are recent and only for full price at a Apple stores, used nd recylced ones from fleabay or craigs list do not qualify so there is no option there either.

 

sorry - folks do niot "accidently buy an iphone from fleabay",  esepcaily htose that reside outisde the borders of the US, they look to play the currency game and get a cheap iphone for their own use in their own countrym the play the game without researching or understand the rules of the game. 

Also - if you do some research, especially on the iphone in lands outside the US - there are numerous carriers that only sell iphones that are locked to teh carrier and are not unlocked - this is documented on the Apple website. 

---

Locked, permanently to the carrier? I'd be interested in seeing that link. I have friends with iphones all over Europe, as well as Canada, Australia etc. No one I know is denied an unlock when the contract is over (Or, as is more often the case, when some predescribed period of time, like 90 days, is over).

Yes, OUTSIDE the U.S. is key. Everyone else has come to expect an unlockable phone. As for Ebay, there's folks on here daily saying they assumed the phone was unlocked when they had it shipped to [insert country name here].. They are all lying?